Bah, humbug!

November is done, and with that, the last of my speaking engagements for this year. The Tethics conference was once again highly enjoyable, although I have to say I would have preferred not to take the night train to get there; even the absolute best-case scenario was getting six hours of sleep that night, and the reality was probably closer to half of that amount. I could have taken a morning train instead and skipped the beginning of the conference, but there were several AI-related papers scheduled to be presented in the morning sessions and I didn’t want to miss those, so I decided to just bite the bullet and suffer a night of inadequate sleep to catch them.

As it turned out, one of those morning presentations got cancelled, and in its place, the organisers had decided to have an impromptu roundtable on the immediate and not-so-immediate future of the conference. Regarding the former, it was decided that next year’s conference will be hosted by the University of Vaasa – a city I’ve never visited as far as I can recall, so it should be a nice change of scenery. The more general conclusions were largely the same as those of a similar discussion last year: the conference growing bigger and more international is a good thing, as long as it remains true to its original ideals. There was also a consensus that different universities taking turns organising the conference is a good idea, and that a steering committee of Tethics veterans should be formed to provide guidance and support.

After the lunch break it was time for John Danaher’s keynote titled “Do technologies disrupt moral paradigms?”, in which he looked at societal transformations induced / catalysed by technological breakthroughs such as the invention of the cannon. I found the talk highly enjoyable, although the effects of sleep deprivation were starting to get to me, so I wasn’t able to concentrate as fully as I would have liked. My own talk was in the session immediately after the keynote and went smoothly, with the lively follow-up discussion that I’ve come to expect from ethics conferences. I’ll post a summary of the paper later, once the proceedings have been published, but in a nutshell, it looks at how the concept of security is viewed by the AI ethics community (as opposed to the traditional cybersecurity community) and carries out a survey of AI incidents to get an idea of the real-world impact of security vulnerabilities in AI systems.

On the second day of the conference, I decided to sleep in and skip the first session; one badly slept night I can take, but not two in a row if I can help it, and after the conference dinner followed by drinks in a pub the night was pretty much ruined to begin with, even though I didn’t stay out very late and kept my alcohol consumption very moderate. Therefore I took my time to get up and have breakfast at the hotel before hauling myself to the conference in time for Anna Metsäranta’s keynote on “Sustainable AI – from principles to practice”. It was good to have someone from industry to shed light on how things are being done out there in the real world, so this was another highlight for me.

In the last session before the closing of the conference, I participated in the running of a workshop with the lofty title “The current state and future of technology ethics education in Finland”. To be quite honest, most of the work was done by Ville Vakkuri and Kai-Kristian Kemell and my own contribution was rather modest, but nevertheless, it was interesting to have this opportunity to share thoughts on this topic and to get ideas for enhancing the computer science and engineering curriculum in Oulu from the perspective of ethics. The question of timing is a particularly interesting one: when should ethics education be offered? At the very beginning of their studies, the students are perhaps not yet ready to absorb that kind of knowledge, but if we wait until after they’ve finished their bachelor’s studies, it may be too late already. Not everyone needs to be an ethics expert, of course, but I do believe that everyone should be exposed to enough ethics content during their studies to normalise the idea that awareness of ethics is part of what makes a good engineer.

Fast-forward about three weeks and I’m in Helsinki, on the island of Santahamina, in the auditorium building of the Finnish National Defence University for the annual seminar on the art of cyber warfare. Instead of an auditorium, the seminar took place inside a small studio set up with a green screen and a webcasting rig; initially, it felt somewhat silly to have travelled all the way there just to stream my presentation, but in the interest of making sure everything runs smoothly, it made perfect sense. Besides, it made the whole thing look a great deal more professional than having each speaker join from their home / office / wherever. My colleague Kimmo Halunen served as moderator, introducing the speakers and relaying audience questions submitted via chat.

The theme of this year’s seminar was AI on the battlefield, and I had been invited to speak on this theme with my AI ethicist hat on. Since I spend a fair amount of time discussing the ethics of autonomous weapons in one of the lectures of my AI ethics course, I decided to build on that and it worked out quite nicely. Somebody told me that there were close to 500 people online for the stream during my talk, and the feedback I’ve heard seems to indicate that it was well received. I’ve already been invited to contribute in some capacity to a couple of dissertations on autonomous weapons, which I’m taking as a sign that I made a positive impression and managed to get some actual successful networking done. The entire seminar (in Finnish) is available to view on YouTube, with my talk starting about 44 minutes in.

Now that I’m apparently finished with the speaking circuit for 2024, it’s a good time to reflect a bit. Based on my experience, I would say that I’m actually quite adaptable and versatile, capable of dealing effectively with a variety of audiences, but where I’m at my best – and what I also enjoy the most – is academic seminars. It’s like taking the best of both worlds from lectures and conference presentations: instead of being limited to the scope of a single paper, I get to draw broadly on my expertise and interests to prepare my talk, but I still get to speak primarily as a researcher rather than a teacher, so I can be more relaxed when it comes to the pedagogical aspect. I feel like I can really express myself within those parameters, and it’s always a delight to discover new avenues for that.

Speaking of self-expression, A Christmas Carol has been running for about a month now and is off to a very strong start: the reviews I’ve seen have been highly positive, and all 2024 performances have been sold out for a good while now. 2025 is very much a different matter, and I suppose it’s not surprising that people are much keener to see the play before Christmas than after, but hopefully they won’t lose interest altogether if they didn’t manage to get tickets for before. It’s been great so far, but I suspect that we’re all going to be sick of carols by February, and it certainly won’t help if we’re singing them to an empty house. The demands of the play have been such that I’ve had to prioritise theatre over choir rather heavily, but I’ve managed to squeeze in just enough rehearsal time with Cassiopeia to sing in our Christmas concerts without embarrassing myself, so art-wise, it’s been quite a productive end of the year!

Christmas itself is just a couple of weeks away, so this is in all likelihood my last post of the year. As I’m writing this, I don’t yet have an employment contract for the coming year, but that’s hardly anything out of the ordinary and I expect it will be sorted out soon. If it’s not – well then, get in touch if you need someone to play some music or to give a talk on AI and I’ll get back to you with a quote, I guess?

Deck the halls

It’s been a weird couple of months since I came back from my summer vacation. I haven’t kept track of how my working time has been split among the tools I’ve used, but if I had, I’m pretty sure that number one on the list would be PowerPoint. So many lectures and presentations! I guess it’s good that I get to work on my communication skills, and I do even quite enjoy it when I get to give a well-prepared presentation on a topic I’m genuinely interested in and have something original to say about, but still, enough is enough. I’m hoping this is just a temporary state of affairs, but if not, I may need to work on my saying no to speaker invitations skills.

Indeed, 2024 is already a record year for me in terms of the number of various speaking engagements I’ve had. There are two major reasons for this, the first one being the Reboot Skills project, in which I designed and implemented a course titled Data Governance and Privacy. In addition to the course sessions – three main ones in Finnish, plus an additional one in English in collaboration with the University of Limerick – I’ve attended at least three industry events where I spoke on the subject and pitched the course before it began. Despite these efforts, the course attracted a disappointingly small number of participants, but even so, I’m quite happy to lay it to rest for now and focus on other things.

The other reason is my work on AI ethics, which has gotten me invited to a bunch of seminars recently. This semester I’ve already participated in two: in August, there was a university pedagogy seminar where I presented again the results of my pilot study on integrating AI tools into AI ethics teaching, and a week ago I spoke on responsible AI in research in a seminar organised by the university’s Ethics Working Group. Coming up next is the Tethics conference, where I will both present a paper and co-host a workshop on technology ethics education, and at the end of November comes a seminar at the Finnish National Defence University in Helsinki, where I’m slated to give my perspective as an AI ethicist on the topic of AI in the battlefield. Nothing yet scheduled for December, but there’s still time…

Tethics, for me, is going to be a somewhat more hurried affair this year. I will be there for the whole duration of the conference, but instead of traveling the day before as I normally would, I’m going to take a night train that arrives in Tampere in the morning of the first day. The reason for this is that I have commitments in Oulu that prevent me from leaving much earlier than midnight on the night between the 5th and 6th of November. More specifically, on the evening of the 5th is the first of three dress rehearsals for a stage adaptation of Dickens’s A Christmas Carol at Oulu City Theatre, and I won’t be in town for the other two so I can’t afford to skip it.

That’s right, I’m going to be back on stage, less than a year after the end of The Magic Flute! The director is the same, and when I heard she was looking for singers for this production, it didn’t take me too long to decide that I want in. The only reason why I needed any time at all to think about it was that the rehearsals clash with those of Cassiopeia, so I’ve been mostly absent from the choir since the beginning of September. However, it’s not that often that an opportunity like this turns up, and the only big choir thing remaining this year is the traditional Christmas concert, so I figured now’s not the worst time to take a little break.

Compared to the opera, working on the play is notably different in a few respects. For one thing, instead of a whole chorus of forty singers there’s only a quartet, and we also have significantly more time on stage, so I have a bigger role now, even though I’m not playing an actual named character. I even have a couple of spoken lines! I’m also officially employed by the theatre this time – the pay is hardly worth mentioning, but just the fact that I’m getting money for something I’m basically doing as a hobby is pretty cool.

Artistically speaking, the biggest difference is that we’re not on stage as singers, but rather as actors playing singers. This may seem like semantic quibbling but is actually a significant distinction, as everything we do on stage must be in service of the story. To some extent this was the case also with The Magic Flute, but surely it would have been too sacrilegious to touch Mozart’s music, no matter what the director’s vision is calling for. Here, on the other hand, it’s often the case that we don’t get to sing a song all the way through because the rhythm of the scene doesn’t allow it, and on a couple of occasions we get interrupted mid-verse by stage events. Apart from that, everything feels quite natural and I’m really happy and excited to be doing theatre again.

Another thing I’m very happy about is that with the Data Governance and Privacy course finished, I have some time to work on things that aren’t my next PowerPoint slideshow for a change. Like writing papers! There’s one I’ve been itching to get started on for a good while now, and it looks like now is finally the time. I’m also supposed to be working in a couple of projects besides Reboot Skills, and “no updates from me” is a phrase I’ve had to use a bit too frequently in meetings of late. Who knows – maybe there’ll be more papers to write once I’ve reminded myself what it is that I’m meant to be doing in those projects…

Mission accomplished

The mission being my university pedagogy studies. Yep, I’m now officially done – the final grade for the final part, the teaching practice, was awarded today. I know it’s just the basic studies, but it almost feels like I’ve completed a whole degree. In the concluding seminar four weeks ago, the first in-class assignment was to choose one from a set of cards with pictures of works of art on them and tell everyone else why that one; I went straight for The Garden of Death by Hugo Simberg because frankly, I was feeling pretty dead from basically being in high gear all spring, but there was also some more positive symbolism of planting and growth there. In any case, I’m not going to even consider the possibility of intermediate studies until I’ve taken a gap year.

The ethics course is more or less a wrap, although there are still a few students with some assignments missing. It’s another record year for the course, with 50 registrations and almost 30 completions, around ten more than last year. Partly because of the record numbers, I wasn’t able to keep to the formative assessment schedule I was aiming for, where each learning assignment would have been assessed before the next one is due. There were other issues with the assignments as well – the new format I tried this year was a step forward, but it’s clear that there’s still plenty of room for improvement in terms of reducing the potential gains from using generative AI as a substitute for thinking and learning.

Overall, however, I would say that the teaching practice was a success. The experiments I carried out produced useful data and experience on how to integrate AI tools in various ways into the teaching of AI ethics, and my debating chatbot experiment in particular yielded some very interesting research material. There’s a blog post coming out at some point where I discuss the teaching practice in more detail, and later hopefully also a peer-reviewed publication or two, once I’ve had the time to properly analyse the data and write up the results.

The spring in general has been a mixed bag, with some efforts successful, some not so much. I applied for two big things – a university lecturer position and a Research Council of Finland grant – neither of which I got. On the other hand, I’ve had a series of speaking engagements at various events that all went perfectly well as far as I can tell. I particularly enjoyed the most recent one, an online seminar titled Ethics of AI Hype, where I did my best to put the current generative AI boom into perspective. Truth be told, I’ll jump at any chance to talk gratuitously about the history of computing, but I do also believe that it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of the decades of AI research that took place before anyone had ever heard of such a thing as a large language model.

One event that I can describe with total confidence as a resounding success was the 45th anniversary concert of Cassiopeia. What a privilege it is to be in a choir that’s so skilled and versatile, and such a wonderful community to boot! In a single concert you may hear anything from pop hits to a Cree musical prayer to Mother Earth and from video game themes to a ten-minute-long modern composition commemorating the victims of the MS Estonia disaster. The cherry on top was that the anniversary celebrations coincided almost to the day with my own 45th birthday, so alongside the choir’s milestone, I got to celebrate a personal one in style.

The latest bit of good news (apart from the official conclusion of the pedagogy studies) came just a few days ago: a paper I submitted to this year’s Tethics conference got accepted! Should be a great experience once again; although the location has changed from Turku to Tampere, many of the same people are still involved in one way or another, so I’m looking forward to seeing plenty of familiar faces and catching up with their owners. Also accepted was a proposal for a workshop on tech ethics education, with Ville Vakkuri, Kai-Kristian Kemell, Tero Vartiainen and myself running the show, so I’ll be doing double duty this year, which I don’t mind at all. The reviewers’ suggestions for improving the paper were nothing major and the original camera-ready deadline of June 30 has been pushed back to August 11, so I think I’ll just let it be until after my vacation. The beginning of which, by the way, is barely more than a week away now!

Since when am I sought after?

Since I returned to Oulu from Dublin in 2020, I’ve been more or less systematically shifting my professional focus toward AI ethics and trying to establish a foothold in that community. Two months into 2024, it’s starting to look like those efforts are paying off in a measurable way. The following is a list of ethics-related things I’ve been invited to do since the year began:

Contribute to a workshop proposal for a technology ethics conference
Join the programme committee of another conference with a tech ethics track
Serve on the ethics board of a Horizon Europe project
Work as a researcher in another EU project with an ethics aspect
Give a talk on ethics and participate in a panel discussion at an AI-themed business event

On top of all that, a journal manuscript to which I contributed by writing an ethics section was finally accepted for publication, with very minor revisions. Starting the new year with a splash!

As for what I’ve been doing at work during these past two months, three things very much dominate. First, I finished and submitted my project proposal to the Research Council of Finland, which (as per usual) is unlikely to be granted funding but did at least earn me a glass of sparkling wine and a slice of cake, courtesy of the university. Then there’s my university pedagogy studies, with the preparation of a literature review for the seminar on research-based teacherhood and a plan for my teaching practice taking a fair amount of time. The planning of the OpinTori event, where the results of the teaching practice will be presented, was also recently kicked off.

The third thing was the selection of new students for the international master’s degree programme in computer science and engineering, to which I contributed as an evaluator now for the second time. The number of applicants doubled from last year, and although the evaluation process had been streamlined, it was again, to put it nicely, something of a cathartic experience – presumably even more so for the people in charge of the whole circus. I have to admit, though, that after combing through the slew of application documents assigned to me for evaluation, there was something genuinely rewarding about interviewing the most promising candidates and encountering many who were a real delight to talk to – young, bright, confident, enthusiastic. We’ve also been promised a debriefing party, but sadly, I don’t expect that there will be anything stronger than coffee served at this one.

The next big effort is putting that plan for teaching practice into action, as the AI ethics course kicks off again on Monday the 11th. The plan revolves around the theme of AI ethics education meeting real-world AI applications: I’m going to explore various ways of using generative and conversational AI tools to support the delivery of teaching on the course, while at the same time modifying the learning assignments with the aim of making it more difficult for students to use AI tools in a counterproductive manner. Happily, the university is currently piloting the use of both Copilot for M365 and Azure AI, and I have a bunch of ideas for how they could be of service here. If all goes well, I think there’s even an opportunity to get a scientific publication out of this.

In choir news, The Magic Flute is now well and truly over after a total of 26 performances (plus dress rehearsals), every single one of them sold out. During the week leading up to the final performance I was feeling pretty tired, and I thought it would be primarily a relief to finally say goodbye to the production, but when the curtain was closed on us for the last time, I felt curiously sad after all. The emotion was even more intense the following day, when I went back to the theatre to pick up something I’d left in the dressing room. Since this is so far the only opera, or indeed theatrical production of any kind, I’ve been involved in, I don’t have anything I could meaningfully compare it to, but I got a strong feeling, still lingering, that this was something extra special. You can have too much of a good thing, though, and in retrospect, stretching it out much further would not have been a good idea. Which is not to say that I’m now done with treading the boards, if it’s up to me; apparently the next opera production here will be in 2026, Oulu’s European Capital of Culture year, and if they need tenors for the chorus – well, you just try and stop me.

All of the music, all of the magic

The conference proceedings of Tethics 2023 is out now, including the paper I co-authored – always a pleasant feeling to see your work in its final published form. Interestingly, this year the number of papers submitted for review was given in the preface, which I believe hadn’t been the case previously. Turns out the number was 26, so with 13 papers accepted for publication, the acceptance rate was exactly 50%. Nice to know that despite the small scale of the conference, getting accepted wasn’t a foregone conclusion!

The other papers I’ve had in the works recently have not, alas, been so well received. A journal manuscript to which I made a small contribution came back with a “major revision” verdict – with one of the reviewers being, frankly, rather vague and unhelpful – and another in which I’m the sole author got flat out rejected based on input from just one reviewer, which I wasn’t aware could even happen. Granted, the journal I submitted to is outside my usual field, so perhaps the culture is different there, but I would have thought that it would be standard practice in any field to get two reviews minimum. Maybe a second opinion wouldn’t have swayed the editor’s decision – the single reviewer’s criticisms were mostly fair, I suppose, although there were some misunderstandings – but at least I would have felt better about the process.

Oh well, no point in complaining, better divert that energy to figuring out what to do next with the manuscript. I’m leaning toward submitting it to another journal more or less as is, although maybe I’ll need to change the angle a bit, depending on the journal. I haven’t decided on a target yet or even made a shortlist of potential ones, but probably I’ll go with something closer to home this time. I suppose it’s always an issue when you do cross-disciplinary work that it may not be easy to find a publication channel where it fits in naturally.

Another question lacking a definitive answer is exactly when I’m going to be able to do whatever it is that I’ll end up doing with that manuscript. I’d love to have it revised and submitted before the holidays, but with the start of the Christmas break barely over a week away, I very much doubt the realism of that wish. In theory, it would be doable, given that the usual end-of-term flood of exam papers to be marked has dwindled to a trickle, but in practice, I’m too stressed about a couple of other things, namely my university pedagogy studies and my (so far notional) application to the Research Council of Finland.

That’s right, the Academy of Finland has made some changes recently: its official English name is now the Research Council of Finland, and the former September call for applications has been moved to January. Presumably the net impact of both of these on my life is approximately neutral, but I felt like I should mention them all the same. Anyway, I have my Academy Research Fellow application from last year that I should be able to repackage as an Academy Project application without revising the topic or approach in a fundamental way, so hopefully this round will be somewhat easier than some others I can think of.

Meanwhile, the choir had its traditional Christmas concert last Saturday – I got to sing my very first solo with Cassiopeia! – but that was by no means our final performance of the year. Tonight and tomorrow we are doing something rather special with Oulu Sinfonia: two screenings of Chris Columbus’s festive classic Home Alone with the musical score played live. There isn’t a whole lot of singing to do – all of it is in the second half of the film, and much of it is just for the sopranos and altos, who get to play the role of the children’s choir in the church scene – and initially I wasn’t terribly excited about the whole thing, but that changed on Tuesday when we had our first rehearsal with the conductor. Mr Gabriele turned out to be so full of enthusiasm and so good at working with singers that it was an absolute delight to rehearse with him and I’m now actually pretty hyped about the performances. Bring on the Wet Bandits!

I guess that wraps it up for the blog this year. Usually I have at least the days between Christmas and New Year as time off, but this year I’ll be back at “work” already on the 28th, when the process of getting ready for the new run of The Magic Flute kicks off for real. There are only seven rehearsals scheduled for the chorus before opening night, and that includes the dress rehearsal when we are already going to have an audience in the house, but after the two preliminary ones we had in November, I’m already quite confident. It’s frankly amazing how not just the music but also all the stage action had stuck with me through all the idle time since the last performance in February, but I guess that’s what repetition after repetition after repetition will eventually do to you. The one thing I’m not so sure about (for a number of reasons) is the opening scene choreography, but at least there’s something to keep me from getting cocky!

Text, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll: Tethics 2023 and beyond

Well, that’s it for Tethics 2023! I find myself struggling to accept that this was only the second “proper” one I’ve attended: my first one, in 2020, was an all-online event (for obvious reasons), and in 2022 there was no Tethics because Turku was hosting Ethicomp instead. Despite all that, I want to say that I’ve been going to the conference for years, because it just feels right somehow. I suppose you could take it as a testament to the cosy and welcoming atmosphere of the conference that I feel so at home there.

Certainly there’s something to be said for a conference where you can realistically exchange at least a few words with every fellow delegate over the course of a couple of days. (Not that I ever actually do, mingling not being my strongest suit, but in principle I could have.) I’m pretty sure I’ve commented before on the cultural differences I’ve observed between technical and philosophical conferences, but it’s worth reiterating how much more rewarding it is to attend a conference when there’s a genuine and lively discussion about every presentation. Out of all the conferences I’ve ever been to, Tethics is actually a strong candidate for being closest to ideal in that besides having that culture of debate, it’s small enough that you can fit everyone in a regular-sized classroom, and there are people there representing different disciplines and sectors so you get a nice range of diverse viewpoints in the discussion.

The keynote address of the conference was delivered by Olivia Gambelin, founder and CEO of an AI ethics consulting company called Ethical Intelligence. I very much enjoyed her talk, which dealt with the differences between risk-oriented and innovation-oriented approaches to AI ethics and how it’s not about choosing one or the other but about finding the right balance between the two. I particularly liked her characterisation of the traits of ethical AI systems – fairness, transparency etc. – as AI virtues, and the idea that good AI (or indeed any good technology) should, above all, boost human virtues as opposed to capitalising on our vices. My inner cynic can’t help but wonder if there’s enough money in that for virtuous AI to become mainstream, but I’m not ready to give up on humanity just yet.

Among the regular presentations, there were also several that were somehow related to AI ethics, which I of course appreciated, since I’m always on the lookout for new ideas and perspectives in that area. However, the two that most caught my attention were actually both in the category of “now for something completely different”. On the first day, Ville Malinen spoke on the sustainability and public image of sim racing, which occupies its own little niche in the world of sports, related to but distinct from both real-world motor racing and other esports. On the second day, in the last session I was able to attend before I had to go catch my train home, J. Tuomas Harviainen presented a fascinating – as well as rather surprising – case where he and his colleagues had received a dataset of some three million posts from a dark web drug marketplace and faced the problem of how to anonymise it so that it could be safely archived in a research data repository.

Another highlight was my own paper – and I can say this with at least some degree of objectivity, since my own involvement in both the writing and the presentation was relatively small. Taylor Richmond, who was my master’s student and also worked as my assistant for a while, wrote the manuscript at my suggestion, based on the research she did for her M.Sc. thesis. She then got and accepted a job offer from industry, and I figured that it would be up to me to present the paper at the conference, but to my delight and surprise, she insisted on going there to present it herself, even at her own expense. I offered some advice on how to prepare the presentation and some feedback on her slides, but all of the real work was done by her, leaving me free to enjoy the most low-stress conference I’ve ever attended.

The paper itself explores content feed swapping as a potential way of mitigating the harmful effects of filter bubbles on social media platforms. Taylor proposed a concept where a user can click a button to temporarily switch to seeing the feed of the user with the least similar preferences to theirs, exposing them to a radically different view of the world. To test the concept, she carried out an experiment where ten volunteers spent some time browsing a simulated social media platform and answered a survey. The results showed that the feed swap increased the users’ awareness of bias without having a negative impact on their engagement, the latter being a rather crucial consideration if real-world social media companies are to even consider adding such a functionality to their applications. Despite some obvious limitations, it was a seriously impressive effort, as noted by several conference delegates besides me: she designed the experiment, created the social media simulation and analysed the data all by herself, and she did a fine job with the presentation as well. My own contribution, apart from my supervisory role, was basically that I wrote some framing text to help sell the subject matter of the paper to the tech ethics crowd.

Also on the agenda this year was a special session on the future of the Tethics conference. The Future Ethics research group at the Turku School of Economics, which has organised every event so far, is apparently not in a position to commit to doing it again next year, so there was a discussion on finding an alternative host, with Tampere University emerging as the most likely candidate. As much as I’ve enjoyed all of my visits to Turku, I’d certainly appreciate the two hours that this would slice off my one-way travel time! There was also some talk about possibly going more international – attracting more participants from outside the Nordic countries, perhaps hosting the conference outside Finland at some point in the future – but there was a general consensus that in any case the event should remain relatively small and affordable to retain its essence. Personally, I quite like the idea that Oulu could be the host some year, although I don’t know how many others there are here who’d be on board with that.

In the meantime, my top two professional priorities right now are getting more focused on research (with a whole bunch of distractions now happily out of the way) and finishing my university pedagogy studies. It might seem like these are more or less diametrically opposed to one another, but thankfully that’s not the case: I can see potential in both of the remaining courses – teaching practice and research-based teacherhood – for advancing my research interests as well as my pedagogical knowledge. I have a couple of journal manuscripts in the works, one recently submitted and the other undergoing revisions, and I’m involved in a cybersecurity-themed research project where I’ve been looking into AI vulnerabilities from an AI ethics perspective. I’m sure the next distraction is waiting to pounce on me just around the corner, but until it does, I’m going to indulge myself and pretend that I have no work duties other than thinking deep thoughts and making sense of the world.

As usual, there are things happening on the music front as well. The choir currently has its sights set firmly on two big Christmastime projects, but there’s been time for a variety of smaller performances too; a particularly memorable occasion was singing Sogno di Volare, the theme song of the video game Civilization VI, as the recessional music at the wedding ceremony of two choir members. Next year we’ll have the choir’s own 45^th anniversary celebrations – and, of course, the new run of The Magic Flute! The first music rehearsal for the latter is scheduled to take place just a couple of weeks from now. Will be interesting to see how much of the music we can still remember, although the real challenge will come in December when we start relearning the choreographies…

Pictures and sounds

A new cinema club kicked off at the university yesterday with a screening of the 2014 film Ex Machina, written and directed by Alex Garland. Domhnall Gleeson stars as Caleb, a programmer working for a company called Blue Book – basically a stand-in for Google – who wins a competition and gets invited to spend a week with Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the company CEO, at his place in the mountains. Soon after Caleb’s arrival, it turns out that the real reason for him being there is Ava (Alicia Vikander), a revolutionary humanoid robot Nathan’s been developing in secrecy. Nathan wants Caleb to subject Ava to the ultimate version of the Turing Test: interact with her to determine if she’s truly intelligent, sentient and self-aware on a human level.

I was initially a little bit annoyed at how the film exaggerates the significance of the Turing Test, as if there is some kind of fundamental qualitative distinction between an entity that beats the test and one that doesn’t, but that soon stopped bothering me after the film moved on to more interesting things. The usual annoyances related to the representation of technology in mainstream cinema are also there – empty technobabble, Hollywood hacking – but these are kept to a minimum and equally easy to forgive. At one point Nathan stops Caleb when the latter is trying to ask technical questions about Ava’s AI, which I felt was the author speaking to the audience as much as Nathan to Caleb: never mind how it’s supposed to work, we’re here to talk philosophy.

Such petty complaints were certainly not enough to prevent me from thoroughly enjoying the movie, and I must say I’m rather surprised I hadn’t seen it before or even been aware it existed. The discussion afterward was highly stimulating as well; because of my interest in AI ethics, I’d been invited to join it in the capacity of moderator, but this was more of a nominal role and what I really did was give my views on a couple of questions from the organisers to get the conversation started. All the big philosophical issues related to AI came up – the nature of consciousness, rights of artificial entities, AI alignment, the singularity, AI as an existential threat. Time well spent! The club nights are always on a Thursday, which I ordinarily keep reserved for band rehearsal, but I like the concept and there are interesting films coming up (including one I haven’t seen before), so I’m tempted to go again.

Meanwhile in the world of non-fictional AI, I’ve managed to keep myself appropriately busy for the past few weeks that I’ve been back at work, largely thanks to my AI ethics course and various things derived from it: analysing the course feedback from last spring, giving some lectures for a summer school in learning analytics, finishing two online courses due to be launched soon. The feedback was particularly nice this time – every student who answered the survey gave the course the highest possible overall grade, and in general there was a clear shift towards more favourable answers from last year. Granted, there were only six responses, but that’s still a third of all the students who completed the course this year, and both the completion rate and the absolute number of students who completed were the highest so far. Combined with my personal experience, it all makes me quite confident that I’m headed in the right direction with the course.

The choir is also back from its summer break, with a new musical director. We had our first rehearsal of the new term last week, and there are several small performances coming up already in the next couple of weeks, although I’m going to miss most of them because I’ll be away on a trip. During the summer some of us (myself included) participated in the creation of Owla, a new installation by sound artist Jaakko Autio, and a most interesting and rewarding experience it was. First we rehearsed and recorded a piece of music composed specifically for this occasion by a friend of the artist, and during the process Jaakko captured not just the music but also all the chatter in between takes. Once we were happy with the song, we sat down, still mic’d up, and Jaakko asked us some interview questions, had us introduce each other and finally just breathe for a few minutes. All of this audio became raw material for the installation, which opened at the Oulu Museum of Art on Wednesday, so go check it out if you’re in town!

Still alive

I am indeed! Barely, but still. Once again blogging has been forced to take a back seat, but I thought I should do one more post before my vacation – which, happily, is right around the corner. No big deadlines before that, just some exam marking plus a bunch of writing that I can pick up from where I left off when I come back to work in August. Next week will be more like a half week because of the faculty’s staff summer party and the Midsummer weekend, and after that there’s just one week of work left before I’m free. Seems too good to be true!

The AI ethics course is happily finished by now: lectures given, assignments evaluated, grades entered into Peppi. Again, it was a lot of work, but also rewarding and enjoyable. There are always at least a couple of students who really shine, turning in excellent assignment submission after another, and those alone are enough to make it all worthwhile. However, a big part of the enjoyment is also that I can use the course as a test lab of sorts, changing things a bit and trying something new each time, seeing what works and what doesn’t. This time I made some changes to the assessment criteria and practices, which seemed to work, so I think I’ll continue in the same direction next year with the teaching development project that I need to do as part of my university pedagogy studies.

Of course, there’s always new things happening in the world of AI, so the course contents also need some updating each year. This spring, for obvious reasons, the ethical implications of generative AI tools kept popping up under various course themes, and I also encouraged the students to try ChatGPT or some other such tool at least once to generate text for their assignment submissions. There were certain rules, of course: I told the students that they must document their use of AI, critically examine the AI outputs and take responsibility for everything they submit, including any factual errors or other flaws in AI-generated text. The results of the experiment were a bit of a mixed bag, but at any rate there were some lessons learned, for myself and hopefully for the students as well. If you won’t trust students to use AI ethically on an AI ethics course, where then?

The most recent big news related to AI ethics is that the European Parliament voted this week to adopt its position on the upcoming AI Act, so the regulation is moving forward and it may well be that on next year’s course we will be able to tell the students what it looks like in its final form. The parliament appears to have made some substantial changes to the bill, expanding the lists of prohibited and high-risk applications and specifying obligations for general-purpose AI systems while making exemptions for R&D so as not to stifle innovation. It will be extremely interesting to see what the impact of the act will be – on AI development and use, of course, but also on AI regulation elsewhere in the world, since this is very much a pioneering effort globally.

After my summer holiday I’ll need to hit the ground running, because I’m once again giving some AI ethics lectures as part of a learning analytics summer school. A new thing this year is that I’m also preparing an ethics module for a new Master’s programme in sustainable autonomous systems, a collaboration between my university and the University of Vaasa. I don’t mind the new challenge at all – I took it upon myself more or less voluntarily, after all – but it does mean that my job title is increasingly at odds with what I actually do. Still, I’ve managed to fit in some research as well, and starting in the autumn I’ll even be participating in a proper research project for a change.

One of the highlights of the spring is that I got a paper accepted to Tethics 2023 – or rather, I supervised a student who got a paper accepted, which feels at least as rewarding as if I’d done the research myself, if not more so. In any case, it looks like I’ll be visiting Turku for an ethics conference for the third year running, and I really wouldn’t mind if this became a tradition! I’m even looking forward to the networking aspect, which I’m usually pretty bad at. Somehow ethics conference are different and Tethics especially – partially because it’s so small, I suppose, but perhaps also because these people are my tribe?

Musically, the spring term was very successful. After The Magic Flute we appeared in two concerts with Oulu Sinfonia – one of them sold out – performing music by the late great Ennio Morricone. Sadly, we then parted ways with our musical director of many years, which forced some planned events to be cancelled / postponed / scaled down, but everyone seems determined to keep the motor running and overall I feel pretty good about the future of the choir. There will be some big things happening late this year and early the next, including (but not limited to) another run of the opera in January and February. Three out of eleven shows are sold out already, so if you missed it this year, get your ticket now!

The final curtain

Happy 2023, I guess? I know it’s a bit ridiculous to be wishing that when we’re more than halfway into February already, but it is my first blog post of the year – I checked. In my defence, the beginning of the year has been pretty much exactly as intense as I feared it would be, with me trying my best to balance between my commitments to the university and the theatre. The first week of January was the absolute worst: I returned to work immediately after New Year, and that week we had rehearsals every night from Monday to Thursday. I was still suffering from the problem of sleeping badly after them, so the inevitable result was me being utterly knackered by Friday, which fortunately was a bank holiday, giving me a chance to recover before two more rehearsals on Saturday.

The following week we had dress rehearsals from Monday to Wednesday, Thursday night off and then the first two performances on Friday and Saturday. In terms of effort, it was hardly any easier than the previous week, but the thrill of the opening night more than made up for it all. After the first show we celebrated with some bubbly and they even gave flowers to all of us chorus members; sadly, mine suffered rather heavy damage on the way home, which involved a pit stop in a crowded bar that I ended up leaving before I even had a chance to order myself a drink, but I was able to salvage the essential part of the poor abused plant and keep it looking nice for a good week.

After opening week, things got considerably less hectic, since there were no more rehearsals, just performances – first three per week, then down to two for the last couple of weeks. This weekend’s the final one, so around 4pm on Saturday the curtain will close on our production of The Magic Flute for the last time. All 15 performances sold out, and all the reviews I’ve seen have been very positive, so I guess it’s safe to say we’ve had a successful run! It’s been a wonderful experience for me personally as well, but I can’t deny that toward the end it has begun to feel more and more like work that I’m not getting paid for and that has made me put my other hobbies (not to mention my social life) largely on hold for quite a while. I’m very much looking forward to next Friday and my first commitment-free weekend of the year.

The big thing at work right now is evaluating applications to international M.Sc. degree programmes. This is the first time I’m involved in the process, and boy is it a trudge and a half. Sure, it’s interesting to get a sneak peek at some of the new students who may be joining us from around the world next autumn, but the work itself is first tedious, crawling through the mass of application documents to identify the most promising candidates, and then stress-inducing, doing interviews with each of them. I recently had a chat about this with a friend of mine who’s been in the IT consulting business for many years and interviewed his share of job applicants, and he said he finds interviews stressful because he can tell that the other person is nervous, so then he empathises with them and starts to feel their discomfort. Me being me, I get stressed about talking to new people even without that extra factor, so I’m going to be extremely glad once I’m done with my share of the interviews.

Something that’s turned out to be a blessing here is the Bookings app in Microsoft 365. This has been very helpful in scheduling the interviews: you just specify the times when you are available, make sure your calendar is up to date with your other appointments so you don’t get double bookings, and then send a link to the booking page to the people you want to invite and let them pick a time that works for them. Apparently in the past this has been done by tentatively selecting a date and time for each candidate, emailing it to them and asking them to email back with suggestions if the proposed time doesn’t suit them; I certainly don’t relish the idea of having that kind of administrative overhead on top of the actual evaluation work, even though it might have helped get the interviews spaced out more evenly and efficiently.

As usual, there’s no need to worry about running out of work to do in the spring either: the start of period IV is just three full weeks away, and with that comes the start of another run of the AI ethics course. I’ll count myself lucky if it doesn’t take up even more of my time than before; I’m the sole responsible teacher now, but on the other hand I will have a teaching assistant, and I also have some ideas for streamlining the evaluation of course assignments to make it less of a burden. Another thing to think about is my stance on ChatGPT and its ilk; certainly I’m going to discuss the technology and its implications in my lectures, but I’ll also need to decide what to do about the possibility of students using it to generate text for their assignment submissions. I’m leaning toward embracing it rather than discouraging or outright banning it – I don’t know how I’d enforce such a ban anyway – but if I go there, it’s not exactly trivial to come up with assignments that give everyone an equal opportunity to exploit the technology and demonstrate their learning to me.

Here be dragons

Well what do you know – it’s December already! A year of returning to a normal of sorts, at least as far as COVID is concerned, coming to an end. For me, “normal” now means working on campus a couple of days a week on average, generally on days when I don’t have any online meetings, since I find it the most convenient to do those at home. We also coordinate within the research group so that there will usually be a few of us there at the same time so we can have lunch and coffee together. The most “old normal” thing I’ve done this year was giving a gool old-fashioned lecture in a lecture hall, the first one since 2019 – and that was in Dublin, so the last pre-pandemic one I gave in Oulu must have been in 2017. I went to the auditorium half an hour in advance just to be sure to avoid any delays due to me being out of touch with the latest presentation technology, but the hardest part turned out to be finding the light switch!

The end of the year has been heavily dominated by teaching-related tasks. There’s the usual avalanche of exams to be marked – a routine that never seems to get any less tedious, but at least it’s something useful to do when I’m not feeling creative enough for anything else. On top of that I’m currently involved in not one but two adult education projects where the university is offering companies training on AI-related topics. One of the topics covered is AI ethics, and recently I’ve been working on creating a new fully automated online course based on the syllabus of the lecture course, which is an interesting challenge, since it’s not exactly trivial to come up with genuinely meaningful ethics assignments where the answer can be checked by an algorithm. Making the course content relevant to the target audience is another challenge, and I’m hoping that people from a variety of companies will not only complete the course but leave some feedback as well.

Meanwhile in the world of music, rehearsals for The Magic Flute kicked off for real last week, and this week we already did a run-through of the first act in its entirety. I have no idea how these things usually work, but I feel like it went quite well, given how quickly we got to that point. From my point of view, the bit that needs the most work is what happens during the overture and the first scene; without giving away too much of what’s to come, I can say that there’s a dragon terrorising the hero, which involves most of the male chorus (myself included) executing a choreographed routine that, for a bunch of untrained amateurs, is certainly enough of a challenge to learn alongside the parts we actually signed up for. One of us hadn’t even had a chance to see the choreography in action before the run-through, so it was inevitably a mess, but we have time booked later for sorting it out.

So far the experience has been slightly bewildering, but above all interesting and rewarding. I guess I was expecting – rather naively, in retrospect – that the details of the production would be all figured out before the start of rehearsals and we’d be told exactly what to do on stage, but that’s not how it works at all. The director gives us the broad strokes, but the finer points are largely made up as we go along, and it often involves a fair bit of improv, also from us extras. It feels great to be included in the creative process like that, and somehow quite natural too, there’s hardly any of the self-consciousness that I’d normally expect to feel when thrown into a situation like that. Although the “characters” that I get to play are essentially just part of the background, I’m doing my best to come up with little things of my own that I can do to breathe life into them. Singing, dancing and acting – I’m a regular triple threat, me!

Another curious thing is that rather than tired, I’ve been feeling strangely invigorated after the rehearsals, presumably because of the mental stimulation. The downside is that it takes a while afterward to wind down properly, and since the rehearsals are in the evening, I’ve found it completely impossible to fall asleep until well after midnight. With daytime length down to four and a half hours and still diminishing, this time of year is exhausting enough without sleep deprivation, so I hope the novelty will wear off soon and I’ll start feeling ready to hit the sack as soon as I get home from the theatre. If not, at least we’ll break for Christmas and New Year before things get seriously hectic in preparation for the opening night.